It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


U.S. Standard of Living Has Fallen More Than 50%

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:53 AM
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

No sense dealing with facts huh..

This country would be ok if we could convince all these dummy commies to steal a boat and cross to Cuba,

Oh, right, they're all trying to get over HERE. Why is that? Communism is utopia, amiright?

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:05 AM
reply to post by rbnhd76

Can't say communism has been expressed too well in the real world, but the average western capitalist doesn't really know diddly because Marx is not a light read. Also, mentioning Marx doesn't make one popular in the heartland.

The fact is a few have ammassed ridiculous wealth and power and an even vague idea of economic justice is long overdue in the U.S. (again).

Maybe socialism to communism is too much to ask, but returning to social justice is pretty much going to happen... it would be nice if we could do it through votes rather than blood is all.
edit on 4/18/2012 by Baddogma because: -

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:27 AM

Originally posted by TheRedneck

And you are trying to redefine terms to support your position.

Sorry, but I don't debate moving targets.

No I am not. Those are the true definitions....

In the traditional sense, "capitalism" means the ownership and control of the means of production by a class of "capitalists" (in the traditional sense, the owners of capital, or means of production used by workers other than the capitalists/owners themselves) and an economic and political system that favors this.

In the traditional sense, "socialism" means the ownership and control of the means of production by the workers themselves, whether as individuals, cooperatives, collectives, communal groups, or through the state, and an economic and political system that favors this. One should note that this does not necessarily mean by the people as a whole, nor does it necessarily mean state ownership, nor does it necessarily imply a non-market form of organization; historically, anarcho-individualism (e.g., in the free-market form advocated by Benjamin Tucker) has been an important form of socialism.

You my friend are MSM educated. You are using the misrepresented version of these terms, that is why what I am saying is confusing you. You should try actually reading something about economic system instead of just taking what you have been told as the truth.

edit on 4/18/2012 by ANOK because: it's a commie take-over Harry

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:47 AM
reply to post by rbnhd76

I have no idea why you said that?

I am not pro-communism... but I DO think thta society owes protection to it's most vulnerable and things like education and infrastructure to everyone. I also think that that has been shown to work in many countries AND that unregulated Capitalism/Capitalism controlling the democratic process, has lead to disasters, on many occasions....

But I'm no communist.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:22 AM

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Leftist

Ok so corporations must be evil is that it? What would happen if you were told where you were going to work? Where you could live(I mean which luxury apartment you would get). Because that is what communism is about. Just ask anybody from a former communist country. Is it worth it just to have some "safety"?
edit on 17-4-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I'm from former "communist" country. As mentioned earlier it was not communism nor socialism. It was state capitalism with central planned economy.
Even against heavy propaganda of "free" MSM people in my country start to realize that not everything was so bad. Do we want return of state capitalism? No. Do we want corporate capitalism? No. Both systems are oppressive in one or other way.
What we want? We do not know because debate about future did not start yet. We are now waking up from that "American dream" which turned to nightmare. We realize that almost all of our industry is in hands of foreign banks (in better case) or closed for good, water sources, mines, land, etc ... all is lost. In 1989 we, the people, owned - at least on paper - all assets. Now we have nothing.

I'm anarchist so I have same skepticism toward big state as libertarians have. But also I'm skeptic toward capitalism as private ownership of MEANS OF PRODUCTION. Do you see the difference? Factories should be owned and managed by people who work there. I'm not fundamentalist so I see some sectors where state should be owner or arbiter of last instance: backbone energy and communication networks, large scale mining operations, large water sources, highway and railroad networks, foreign security. Quality control of specified goods and services.
What is possible to manage on local level should be managed on local level by people who use it and work on it - typically last mile segments of power and com. networks, schools, local roads etc.

Forgot to add disclaimer:
An-archy is NOT synonym of A-nomy. An-arche (without singular start) is oppositus to Mon-arche (singular start, usually some half mythical hero as start of succession of kings). A-nomia = without law (scribed and/or moral). People usually use term anarchy where they mean anomy. At least in political debate it is crucial to keep this distinction.
Anarchists basically wants maximal possible decentralisation - where is it possible law should be decided and enforced on local level. US society described by A. de Tocqueville in his famous Democracy in America had many features valued by anarchists. It is strange but anarchists are sometime more conservative than US Republicans

edit on 18-4-2012 by JanAmosComenius because: to add disclaimer

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:35 AM

Originally posted by Another10Pin
reply to post by JanAmosComenius

I just don't understand how anyone can continue to be partisan about this stuff. From where I have been sitting during my life, there are economic and legal systems that have been put in place that have been, and still are, maintained by both parties - and they do not exist to maintain a working democratic-capitalistic (properly regulated) society. Nothing has changed in 30 years except the refinement and strengthening of these policies. Our government, in my opinion, is not representative of the people. They are representative of the corporations and the wealthiest Americans. Oh well, my two cents.
edit on 2012/4/17 by Another10Pin because: Oops. I made a mistake and am now covering my tracks!

I agree with you wholeheartedly. As in USA Democrats and Republicans are in Czech republic SocDem and ODS two faces of one rotten head. They fight on unimportant points distracting public debate from fundamental topics. Both faces serve same criminal mafia.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:43 AM
reply to post by JanAmosComenius

Anarchism is a wimp out and in no way practical with our species as it is. It's a nice utopian dream though.

The rapacious consumerism and exploitation endemic with even regulated capitalism must rethink itself into a gentle socialistic experiment... I hope. Utilities should be owned by the people.

I've been enculturated to enjoy individualism too much to really embrace communism, but the more I learn, the more sense Marx makes.

I wouldn't mind more government regualtion, wealth redistribution and resource planning and as long as we can balance human freedom with social conscience, then our future doesn't have to repeat past mistakes. I just can't groove on reeducation camps, no matter how it effects the greater good...
edit on 4/18/2012 by Baddogma because: -

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:17 AM

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Unity_99

LOL... well I for one have no desire for a supernova... but I'm also not holding my breath for a time when people don't take advantage of each other... something like anarchy might decentralise that, but it certainly wouldn't stop it (and would IMO increase it dramatically).

There's no system that will adequately provide for/protect/enable/manage billions of people with different cultures, histories, strengths, weaknesses, intelligence, etc.,etc.

Inequality in built into our individuality; you can't have one without the other... sadly.

How can we be any more taken advantage of then we already are? I see a system protecting those crooks that are taking advantage of the populations! I am sure most people don't want socialism but I feel we will never be able to have a society based on pure capitalism! As should be pretty obvious by now that this system is too easily corrupted! What you are basically saying is that we the people are the reason why inequality exist but if that's true then why does this inequality seem to exist in so few peoples hands? I think we would be alot better off if the general population were more included in the actual choices then those representatives that we seem to elect! One that seems to say one thing but in reality they represent small groups of wealthy individuals. I would be fine with some inequality as long as it was chosen by the majority of the population! IMHO the only way to fairly balance socialism with the incentives of capitalism would be to combine the two! This would only be fair in a democratically run society and one like this world has not seen the likes of! I think something new needs to be adopted or we will end up fighting endless wars and suffering endlessly as we fight to hold on to an obsolete system developed for a smaller population in a healthier economic time! Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results!

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:41 AM
reply to post by JanAmosComenius

Well, then I correct my statement. I should have said ask ALMOST anybody from a former communist country. Anarchism is no better. Revolution and anarchy is no better than Authoritarianism. It is all rooted in leftist ideology.

I'm assuming you never experienced the gulags. I don't understand how anyone can leave a communist country and still be hungering for that nonexistent Utopian dream.
edit on 18-4-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:48 AM
reply to post by nosacrificenofreedom

Replace the word Capitalism with Free Enterprise. Because inasmuch as people say real communism doesnt exist, we are not functioning entirely in Free Enterprise either. But those who think they hate Capitalism and Corporatism may be hating it for the wrong reason. They think it's because Capitalism is not regulated and Democrats in this country seem to be stuck on the idea that we need more regulating to make everyone be good and Utopian and pretty please with sugar on top, but those excessive regulations are exactly that which keep Capitalism from being Free Enterprise. The Mega Corporations don't mind it so much because they can pay for the overhead costs created by all the regulations, whereas smaller businesses have a harder time.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:49 AM
reply to post by nosacrificenofreedom

Combine socialism and Capitalism? Well isn't that pretty much what we have already? It's called a mixed economy and they have sprinkled in some Keynesian economics as well.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:51 AM
reply to post by Baddogma

Don't expect any freedom with communism. The NWO plans are to control every aspect of our lives, from how much water we get rationed to how much of our paycheck we get to keep, where we work, what health care we will get. You think it's bad now, wait till you get what you thought you wanted.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:00 AM
Every kind of "reason" for America's economic decline is speculated here...inflation, loss of jobs, greedy banksters. All these have a place at the "table of blame".

Consider this. IMO, the decline in the value of money (currency) is the most serious reason for a decline in personal wealth. On August 15, 1971 President Nixon gave an address that sounded like he was helping the dollar by removing the last vestage of worth (gold) from the equation...

This act was sold as "protecting" the dollar, when it in fact it made it eventually worthless. Precious metals of gold and silver have for thousands of years been the approved storage of value.

The 1971 Cadillac Fleetwood had a sticker price of $29,000.
The 2012 Cadillac Fleetwood has a sticker price of $64,000.

The 1971 spot silver price was $6.00 per ounce.
The 2012 spot silver price is $31.00 per ounce

Silver appears to have increased "in value" about five times It HAS NOT. The currency has devalued five times.
You could take that silver you bought in 1971 and buy TWO 2012 Cadillac Fleetwoods today with $17,000 in change.

Conclusion: It's the currency that has changed.

The dollar in 2012 is in fact a "piece of paper", nothing more.

The only difference between a $5 bill and a $50 dollar bill is the arrangement of the ink on the paper.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:38 AM
reply to post by purplemer

yeah thatch why but the reason they getting richer is the government letting all the manufacturing jobs go overseas while lying saying we are a service based economy . wrong if we were service based why everytime i need customer support a guy or gal from india is on other end

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 04:49 AM
The decline started around 1970. What happened then that could have caused it?

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 06:44 AM
I don't really have a problem with rich people being rich (yes I can hear the boo's, hehehe). What I do have a problem with is: People who are not rich being taxed more than those who are rich. On the flip side, I also don't think it's fair to tax the crap out of people who are rich, simply because they are rich (IE we're going to slam you because you were successful).

I also believe that capitalism does work, if it's done right. For 200 years it seemed to work pretty good here in the US. We have had our ups and downs during that time period (examples like the great depression).

Overall however, I do like the idea that I can live in a country where I can take an idea, or a product, and if the conditions are right, the timing is right, it's possible to succeed at it and yes, make money. That money in turn can secure a good life (and I define good life as being able to own your own home, and I don't mean have a house payment or mortage, pay your bills and buy food).

I know earlier I said that Gas seems to me to be a major problem, and I do believe it is. However as many have stated, out sourcing jobs from our country also seems to be a major factor. If you can't work, you can't earn a paycheck, and you can't pay your bills and provide for you family. You become dependent upon social programs and help from other people.

Why are jobs out sourced from the US? Obviously because when a company has to pay a small amount of money to people in another country to do the same job that could be done here, they are going to do it, because they'll make more money that way.

That's a truth up there. The question becomes: Then WHY is it that way? If that truth up there is true, then why have we not always had this problem of all our jobs being out sourced out of our country?

I'm sure you are starting to think. I also noticed 1970 being thrown around. But let's think more in terms of decades instead: 70s, 80s and 90s.

Think about how many jobs started to disappear from here (the US) and instead over time, we started having the goods manufactured over in other countries. We talk about all the stuff we buy that is "Made In China" (when I was a kid it was "Made In Taiwan"). I noticed that more and more electronic components (and I'm not talking about IC chips) were "Made In Mexico".

Your car. If you have a US model, think about it. How many of the parts were manufactured here? Was the car even put together here? Or was in put together else where and then shipped here to be sold to you?

Go back to the 70's and earlier. Look at those US model cars. Tell me now: where were the parts made? Put together?

To me capitalism does work. But it only works will IF the country based upon it has the jobs here for it. That means making products HERE with the resources we have HERE, so they can be sold domestically and exported.

Exactly how many TV's are American made? That includes components and manufacturing. Your DVR? TiVo? Your satellite receiver?
How about your DSL modem? Your computer? Laptop? Cell phone? Hell, even your land line phone?

How about the very clothes on your back?

And yes, even the gas you put in your car (or gas and diesel that is put in that bus, train, plane, etc) is in many cases coming from another country.

So what happened in the 1970's onward? I'll tell you what happened: People started to not care where they got their products from..... Prior to the 70's, the idea of out sourcing your jobs of your company to another country was about as UN-American as you could get. People were proud to buy something that was made in the US.

Then our attitude started to change. We didn't care any more where the product came from. As long as it was cheap! Look how much money I'm saving!
And the manufacture owners, the business owners saw this trend. They realized they could make a LOT more money by having those products made over seas and then sold here, since it seemed the US public didn't really care, as long as they had their stuff, and were able to get their stuff at a cheaper price.

So am I saying we should only buy "Made In USA" only?

Oh no. Sorry. It's Waaaaaaaaay too late for that now people. Unless you are willing to do with out a LOT of stuff, or pay more for certain things that are still made here. They have you by the balls now.

The only way things could change back to where they were, is if all those countries that we out source to now, suddenly got upset with the US and the UN decided to sanction the US. Then those companies would be FORCED to do everything here again. But that's not going to happen. Those other countries, including China, know a good deal when they see it.

Even China knows that capitalism works. It's working for them right now, as the USA provides all those out sourced jobs........

:sad chuckle:

edit on 18-4-2012 by eriktheawful because: spelling

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 07:11 AM
reply to post by ANOK

From your link:

In the later re-definition, "capitalism" means the private (non-government) ownership of the means of production, and more generally the absence of central planning by the state.

In the later re-definition, "socialism" means the ownership and control of the means of production by the people as a whole, generally by means of the state, or simply the ownership and control of the means of production by the state, or more broadly any form of central planning by the state.

Those are the definitions I use. If you want to refute my points, refute them using the definitions they are based on. Don't try to refute it because the words once held a different connotation or definition. That's called "political spin" and considering this is perhaps the most disappointing and disgusting election year to date in my experience, I have quite enough "political spin" in my life right now.

I replied to that post because I want to know one thing from you: in this Utopian economic system you define as socialism (in your definition), who manages this property owned by the workers (this becoming capitalists under your definition), and would those who now own property not become workers without the ability to operate as managers of capital?

It sounds to me like an attempt to use pretty words to support economic revolution to satisfy personal greed.


posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Leftist

It's going to get a lot worse if Obama wins again.

What that chart in the article is showing is that the more regulation and the larger the government and it's influence on our lives, the lower our standard of living goes. Thanks for demonstrating that as we become more Progressive, the worse off we are.

Just when I thought we were getting somewhere. I have to read a ridiculous post like this. George W Bush was sooooo much better for us, haha.

No matter who is in out of these puppets makes no difference, Obama has the same policies and the guy he followed, and Romney, if elected, will have the same policies as Obama and on and on it goes.

It's going to get a lot worse no matter who wins.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Leftist

U.S. Standard of Living Has Fallen More Than 50%

Let me point one thing out here.

Originally posted by Leftist

Using the year 2000 as the numerical base from which to "zero" all of the numbers, real wages peaked in 1970 at around $20/hour. Today the average worker makes $8.50/hour -- more than 57% less than in 1970. And since the average wage directly determines the standard of living of our society, we can see that the average standard of living in the U.S. has plummeted by over 57% over a span of 40 years.
(visit the link for the full news article)

A peak and an average are not the same thing. Find out what the average wage was in 1970, then you'll have my interest.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 08:38 AM
reply to post by EdSurly

Ummmm get a job.

Easier said then done when your job of 16 years is out sourced to India and you are a 58 year old woman.

They like em young these days, no matter you can do financial spread sheet for a client worth millions of dollars each quarter, no matter it took "Team India" over a year to simply learn your assigned clients because you had the hardest ones, you know the ones that merged and split and merged again so in order to comply with state filings you have to run on a archaic system 50 reports and dump them into one table - no matter that they had to buy Excel 2007 because Excel 2003 could only go up to 65,500.

I made 45,000 a year without overtime.......with overtime 52,000+ some nights I stayed until 9:00 PM on my own time, because my boss said a job that took me 12 hours should have been done in 8 - well the people that came after me now need three people to replace accuracy rate was 98%

Get a job, no thank you, I'll collect retirement in another 4 months.

Try working under a real itch of a woman boss going through menopause (and I am also a older woman). This one would make Tim Burton's Red Queen in Alice In Wonderland look like a girl scout. My ex boss, who now was also replaced
could eat any of you ATSers for a h'orderve and still be hungry.

Work place abuse, that's another good topic we should hit on, I could write a book on office war tactics. In fact I am helping a college professor doing research for him but not on that topic.

I went for 10 of my 16 years working under this tyrant being mentally abused.

Either, start my own business, no thanks, not in todays economy - my girlfriend that won 12 million started her own company and lost almost all her money. You really need to know what you are doing and to survive must sell your soul.

In short you do not know what the heck you are talking about.

I've worked with so many people that cannot get a job, jobs that pay enough to survive have been insourced and outsourced, get real.

Again, you are clueless as to how the other half lives and dies trying to survive.

edit on 18-4-2012 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in